S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THE vires of sub-rule (6) of Rule 7 of A. P. Forest Saw Mill (Regulation) Rules, 1969 inserted by G. O. Ms. No. 99, Environment, Forests, Science and Technology (For. III) dated 17-7-1998 is questioned in this Writ Petition.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a partnership firm and is a licence holder under the provisions of A. P. Saw Mill (Regulation) Rules,1969 (for short "saw mill Rules" ). It is engaged in the trade of saw mill-cum-timber business. The activity of the firm is to obtain logs from Government timber depots at different places and to cut the same as per the requirements of the customers.

( 3 ) BY reason of the aforesaid amendment sub-rule (6) has been inserted in the regulations, which reads thus : when timber is brought for conversion to sawmill premises, the licence holder should retain the original permit and issue From-II permit or Form-IV permit under the A. P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970 as the case may be, to the timber owner along with a photocopy of original permit.

( 4 ) THEREFORE, by reason of the above provision, when timber is brought for conversion to sawmill, while retaining the original permit of the timber, it was obligatory on the part of the licence holder of the sawmill to issue Form II or Form IV permit under the A. P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970 (for short "the Transit Rules") to the timber owner along with a photocopy of the original permit.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the concept of forest produce in transit ceases the moment the timber reaches the mill and is cut and, therefore, it cannot be construed as a "forest produce in transit". The Transit Rules, therefore, cannot be applied to the timber from the stage it is cut in the saw mill. The restriction imposed on the sawmill to maintain and issue From-II permit under the Transit Rules is ultra vires. The impugned rule according to the petitioner, is practically unworkable, as, even when old wood from demolished houses is brought to the sawmill for cutting the same into different sizes as per the requirement of the customer, the authorities are insisting upon to comply with the impugned rule in such a situation also. The rule would, therefore, amount to unreasonable restriction offending the right of the petitioner to carry on his business guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the constitution of India.

( 6 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of S. 68 of the Act reads as follows : power of the Government to make rules: (1) The Government may, by notification make rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act.

( 7 ) CHAPTER IV of the Act deals with control of timber and other forest produce in transit or possession. Section 29 thereof reads thus : power to make rules to regulate the transit and possession of timber and other forest produce. The Government may make rules to regulate (i) the floating of timber in the rivers in the State and the transit of timber and other forest produce by land or water; (ii) the possession of teak wood of such value as may be specified in this behalf, or red-sanders wood by any person residing in any village within a radius of fifteen kilometers of such reserved forest as may be specified in this behalf. (2) In particular and without prejudice to generality of the foregoing power, such rules may- (a) specify the routes by which alone timber or other forest produce may be imported, exported or moved into, from or within the State; (b) prohibit the import or export of removing of such timber of other forest produce without a permit from a forest officer duly authorized to issue the same, or otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of such permit, or in the case of timber, without a transit-mark affixed by such officer, (c) provide for the issue, production and return of such permit or in the case of timber, for affixing of transit-mark and for the payment of the fees therefor; (d) provide for the stoppage, reporting, examination and marking of timber or other forest p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document